By KRISTIE LINDEN klinden@yourmvi.com
Monongahela city council intends to eliminate a portion of a leaf disposal ordinance that called for violators to face up to 90 days in prison after a third offense.
Council discussed the issue during a work session Monday morning.
The ordinance, which had its first reading last month, will prohibit residents from throwing leaf waste away with garbage, unless the leaves have been composted as described in the Department of Environmental Protection’s Act 101 of 1988, which established Pennsylvania’s modern recycling program.
The city is also implementing a program to handle leaf waste that will collect leaves at residents’ curbs twice a month in October and November. The city can choose to offer collection outside those dates if necessary.
The city will provide collection of garden residue, shrubs and tree trimmings at least twice a year.
According to the ordinance, the city will also establish a residential drop-off program for leaf waste.
During Monday’s meeting, resident Chad DeSantis asked council to reconsider the penalty portion of the ordinance.
As it stands, the ordinance calls for a $100 fine for a first offense and $300 for a second, while all subsequent offenses could see a fine of $300 and up to 90 days in prison.
DeSantis said he believes it is morally wrong to potentially imprison someone for throwing leaves and sticks away in the garbage.
Councilwoman Claudia Williams said she’d heard similar complaints from other residents, and Mayor Bob Kepics said he would prefer if imprisonment were taken off the table.
DeSantis also pointed out that once the ordinance is enacted, it would be out of council’s hands in terms of who would be prosecuted and what punishment the court would choose for violators. Solicitor Todd Pappasergi said the ordinance includes a progression of punishments that increase with the total number of violations because without that inclusion, the Pennsylvania crimes code would be followed and that could lead to up to $1,000 fines for a first offense.
Pappasergi said the ordinance falls in line with most city laws in that most ordinances include progressive punishments with small, medium and large fines and the threat of imprisonment for repeated violations.
“This makes our ordinance more lenient than what the crimes code would actually provide for in the first place,” Pappasergi said.
The solicitor recommended council consider extending the number of offenses included in the punishment schedule to five and make that fifth offense include an imprisonment option.
Kepics, Williams and Councilman Ken Kulak said they prefer to eliminate the imprisonment punishment option altogether.
“We have a lot of old people in this town and they’re used to doing things a certain way for years,” Kepics said, adding that he doesn’t want to see elderly residents facing jail time. “(Compliance) is not going to happen overnight.”
Pappasergi said the ordinance would mostly be enforcement by the code officer, who like a police officer, would be able to exercise discretion in whether to file a first offense citation or offer a warning.
But, Pappasergi warned, the city must show it is enforcing this ordinance to meet regulations set down by the Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP requires certain obligations from municipalities in exchange for some grant funding. Pappasergi said the DEP could potentially come back to the city and say it wants the funds back if the ordinance is not being followed.
Council agreed to Pappasergi’s final recommendation that the ordinance increase its progression for punishments up to five offenses, at which point the fine would $1,000. Council intends to have the ordinance’s second reading tomorrow at its 7 p.m. meeting.